Biblical Mary!
- Thread starter actsninefour
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
S
When I was younger, I had two pet raccoons for four years 
View attachment 232066
View attachment 232067
View attachment 232068
View attachment 232066
View attachment 232067
View attachment 232068
great photos! and memories
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Yes. It is absurd to think that the woman in Revelation who gives birth to Jesus has anything at all to do with the woman in the Gospels who gives birth to Jesus.
I mean maybe if you want to say the woman in Revelation symbolizes something else in addition to Mary, then that might be reasonable. I suppose I could be convinced of that. Maybe. But if you try to tell me Rev 12 doesn't have anything to do with Mary, then I think you're just refusing to see the obvious.
I mean maybe if you want to say the woman in Revelation symbolizes something else in addition to Mary, then that might be reasonable. I suppose I could be convinced of that. Maybe. But if you try to tell me Rev 12 doesn't have anything to do with Mary, then I think you're just refusing to see the obvious.
There seems to be a lot of acrimony on this board toward Jesus' mother Mary. So, let me put it simply. If God the Father Honored Mary by choosing her to be the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus, obedient to all the Father's commandments honored His mother, and if the Holy Spirit honored Mary, then surely Mary is worthy of our honor too. It honor for Mary is good enough for God, it's good enough for me. Simple as that. If you can't find it in your heart to honor Mary, then you are not with God.
-
4
- Show all
I dislike the sentiment. I don't think it's constructive. But for the sake of curiosity, why do you think that Mary represents more than a vessel?
She had other children after Jesus. She wasn't a virgin forever. She sinned like anyone else. Why should Mary be put on a pedestal?
If God can raise rocks into the seed of Abraham, do the pebbles that rested underneath have some intrinsic value? If so, why would we assume this?
She had other children after Jesus. She wasn't a virgin forever. She sinned like anyone else. Why should Mary be put on a pedestal?
If God can raise rocks into the seed of Abraham, do the pebbles that rested underneath have some intrinsic value? If so, why would we assume this?
-
1
- Show all
At one time I heard that Mary's genealogy was in Luke so I looked it and this is what I found. Which makes Jesus the seed of David. Correct me if think this wrong.
Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.
The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:
2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line
Found this under "Is Mary' lineage in One of the Gospels."
Mary’s Genealogy
So whose genealogy is recorded in Luke? There are two major views. The first view comes from Julius Africanus, an early church father, who claims that the descendants of James (Jesus’ brother) had indicated that Jesus’ father was the child of a levirate marriage. This would mean that the wife of Eli did not bear him a male child; and upon his death, she married his brother Jacob and Joseph was born. Consequently, Eli would be the legal father, but Jacob would be the natural father. This means that Luke’s genealogy is the legal one of Joseph, and Matthew’s is the physical or actual genealogy. But this does not explain why the genealogies are different after King David. It also ignores the fact that Luke carefully avoided using the word “begat,” which occurs in Matt. 1:1-17, throughout the genealogy. But if Luke has recorded Mary’s genealogy, then “of” is correct according to Jewish custom.
The second major view is that this is Mary’s genealogy. This appears to be the correct view since the Greek definite article is missing from Joseph’s name but is included with all of the other names. That is, the addition of Joseph’s name is unusual and suggests that the phrase “as was supposed, the son of Joseph,” should be treated as a parenthetical thought. That is, it is an explanation inserted in the genealogy as an explanation. Mary’s name was skipped and her father was included since this is typical of Jewish genealogies. Therefore, Luke’s genealogy teaches that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Jesus is a descendant of His grandfather. The gospel of Matthew contains Joseph’s genealogy and Luke contains Mary’s genealogy.
This from Mary's Genealogy - Never Thirsty
I am only asking what you think. The Bible says Jesus is the seed of David and thats good enough for me.
Gods Blessings
Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.
The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:
In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.
1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line
Found this under "Is Mary' lineage in One of the Gospels."
Mary’s Genealogy
So whose genealogy is recorded in Luke? There are two major views. The first view comes from Julius Africanus, an early church father, who claims that the descendants of James (Jesus’ brother) had indicated that Jesus’ father was the child of a levirate marriage. This would mean that the wife of Eli did not bear him a male child; and upon his death, she married his brother Jacob and Joseph was born. Consequently, Eli would be the legal father, but Jacob would be the natural father. This means that Luke’s genealogy is the legal one of Joseph, and Matthew’s is the physical or actual genealogy. But this does not explain why the genealogies are different after King David. It also ignores the fact that Luke carefully avoided using the word “begat,” which occurs in Matt. 1:1-17, throughout the genealogy. But if Luke has recorded Mary’s genealogy, then “of” is correct according to Jewish custom.
The second major view is that this is Mary’s genealogy. This appears to be the correct view since the Greek definite article is missing from Joseph’s name but is included with all of the other names. That is, the addition of Joseph’s name is unusual and suggests that the phrase “as was supposed, the son of Joseph,” should be treated as a parenthetical thought. That is, it is an explanation inserted in the genealogy as an explanation. Mary’s name was skipped and her father was included since this is typical of Jewish genealogies. Therefore, Luke’s genealogy teaches that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Jesus is a descendant of His grandfather. The gospel of Matthew contains Joseph’s genealogy and Luke contains Mary’s genealogy.
This from Mary's Genealogy - Never Thirsty
I am only asking what you think. The Bible says Jesus is the seed of David and thats good enough for me.
Gods Blessings
-
1
- Show all
I know that in Hebrew tradition the seed comes through the mother. If I marry a Jewish woman then my children are considered Jewish. But if a Jewish man marries a gentile woman the children are considered gentile.
Gods Blessings
If anyone would be interested in a knowledgeable website filled with writing's on world religions and a whole lot on Christianity.
Internet Sacred Text. When you get in scroll down to Christianity. Pick and choose what you wish to read.
Gods Blessings
Gods Blessings
If anyone would be interested in a knowledgeable website filled with writing's on world religions and a whole lot on Christianity.
Internet Sacred Text. When you get in scroll down to Christianity. Pick and choose what you wish to read.
Gods Blessings
-
1
- Show all
Mary was born of a woman, fathered by a man who traced their ancestry to Adam and Eve. In other words, she was born in sin and conceived in iniquity, like everyone else. How you do you get spiritual mother out of what Lord Jesus said to her and John?
You are reading things into God's word that are not there. How do you know that the woman in Rev 12 is Mary? Does it state her name? No. Perpetual virgin? No, Mary had other children. They were not conceived by the Holy Spirit. Lord Jesus rebuked her at one time. Matthew 12:48. Lord Jesus placed His disciples ahead of His earthly mother.
I have no questions except to wonder how you can twist the scriptures without any justification?
You are reading things into God's word that are not there. How do you know that the woman in Rev 12 is Mary? Does it state her name? No. Perpetual virgin? No, Mary had other children. They were not conceived by the Holy Spirit. Lord Jesus rebuked her at one time. Matthew 12:48. Lord Jesus placed His disciples ahead of His earthly mother.
I have no questions except to wonder how you can twist the scriptures without any justification?
-
1
- Show all
Any acrimony that you perceive is against idolatry and heresy, not against any person.
As for your dichotomy, it's false. There is no need for Christians to "honour" Mary any more than we "honour" any other biblical figure. Each played a role, and each would direct all honour to Jesus.
As for your dichotomy, it's false. There is no need for Christians to "honour" Mary any more than we "honour" any other biblical figure. Each played a role, and each would direct all honour to Jesus.
-
1
- Show all
Obvious: Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth
And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days
Obviously not Mary as she never could, posses the attributes describe here to the woman = Obvious #1
Satan and the fallen angels did not descend to earth when Mary gave birth to Christ - never happenned = Obvious #2
Joseph and Mary never fled to the wilderness with Jesus - never happened = Obvious #3
Worship of Mary or of anyone other then the Lord Jesus Christ is obviously forbidden by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
So OBVIOUS that she is never mentioned other then a few places in the Gospels and never referred to by the Apostles.
If, you join a RCC you can have all the idols and rosary beads you wish = obviously.
And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days
Obviously not Mary as she never could, posses the attributes describe here to the woman = Obvious #1
Satan and the fallen angels did not descend to earth when Mary gave birth to Christ - never happenned = Obvious #2
Joseph and Mary never fled to the wilderness with Jesus - never happened = Obvious #3
Worship of Mary or of anyone other then the Lord Jesus Christ is obviously forbidden by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
So OBVIOUS that she is never mentioned other then a few places in the Gospels and never referred to by the Apostles.
If, you join a RCC you can have all the idols and rosary beads you wish = obviously.
S
At one time I heard that Mary's genealogy was in Luke so I looked it and this is what I found. Which makes Jesus the seed of David. Correct me if think this wrong.
Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.
The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:
2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line
Found this under "Is Mary' lineage in One of the Gospels."
Mary’s Genealogy
So whose genealogy is recorded in Luke? There are two major views. The first view comes from Julius Africanus, an early church father, who claims that the descendants of James (Jesus’ brother) had indicated that Jesus’ father was the child of a levirate marriage. This would mean that the wife of Eli did not bear him a male child; and upon his death, she married his brother Jacob and Joseph was born. Consequently, Eli would be the legal father, but Jacob would be the natural father. This means that Luke’s genealogy is the legal one of Joseph, and Matthew’s is the physical or actual genealogy. But this does not explain why the genealogies are different after King David. It also ignores the fact that Luke carefully avoided using the word “begat,” which occurs in Matt. 1:1-17, throughout the genealogy. But if Luke has recorded Mary’s genealogy, then “of” is correct according to Jewish custom.
The second major view is that this is Mary’s genealogy. This appears to be the correct view since the Greek definite article is missing from Joseph’s name but is included with all of the other names. That is, the addition of Joseph’s name is unusual and suggests that the phrase “as was supposed, the son of Joseph,” should be treated as a parenthetical thought. That is, it is an explanation inserted in the genealogy as an explanation. Mary’s name was skipped and her father was included since this is typical of Jewish genealogies. Therefore, Luke’s genealogy teaches that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Jesus is a descendant of His grandfather. The gospel of Matthew contains Joseph’s genealogy and Luke contains Mary’s genealogy.
This from Mary's Genealogy - Never Thirsty
I am only asking what you think. The Bible says Jesus is the seed of David and thats good enough for me.
Gods Blessings
Many conservative scholars have taken this view because of the many differences in the names between the two accounts. The biggest difference is that after David, many of the names are different. It would seem best to explain the difference by viewing Luke’s genealogy as tracing the physical ancestors of Christ through Mary, while Matthew’s genealogy traces the kingly line of Christ through Joseph.
The following is the comment from The Bible Knowledge Commentary:
In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist.
1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary.2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line
Found this under "Is Mary' lineage in One of the Gospels."
Mary’s Genealogy
So whose genealogy is recorded in Luke? There are two major views. The first view comes from Julius Africanus, an early church father, who claims that the descendants of James (Jesus’ brother) had indicated that Jesus’ father was the child of a levirate marriage. This would mean that the wife of Eli did not bear him a male child; and upon his death, she married his brother Jacob and Joseph was born. Consequently, Eli would be the legal father, but Jacob would be the natural father. This means that Luke’s genealogy is the legal one of Joseph, and Matthew’s is the physical or actual genealogy. But this does not explain why the genealogies are different after King David. It also ignores the fact that Luke carefully avoided using the word “begat,” which occurs in Matt. 1:1-17, throughout the genealogy. But if Luke has recorded Mary’s genealogy, then “of” is correct according to Jewish custom.
The second major view is that this is Mary’s genealogy. This appears to be the correct view since the Greek definite article is missing from Joseph’s name but is included with all of the other names. That is, the addition of Joseph’s name is unusual and suggests that the phrase “as was supposed, the son of Joseph,” should be treated as a parenthetical thought. That is, it is an explanation inserted in the genealogy as an explanation. Mary’s name was skipped and her father was included since this is typical of Jewish genealogies. Therefore, Luke’s genealogy teaches that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Jesus is a descendant of His grandfather. The gospel of Matthew contains Joseph’s genealogy and Luke contains Mary’s genealogy.
This from Mary's Genealogy - Never Thirsty
I am only asking what you think. The Bible says Jesus is the seed of David and thats good enough for me.
Gods Blessings
also, I think a couple of other posters at the beginning of the thread also mentionned that
Seventeen verses in the New Testament describe Jesus as the “son of David.” But the question arises, how could Jesus be the son of David if David lived approximately 1,000 years before Jesus? The answer is that Christ (the Messiah) was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:12–16). Jesus is the promised Messiah, which means He had to be of the lineage of David. Matthew 1 gives the genealogical proof that Jesus, in His humanity, was a direct descendant of Abraham and David through Joseph, Jesus’ legal father. The genealogy in Luke 3 traces Jesus’ lineage through His mother, Mary. Jesus is a descendant of David by adoption through Joseph and by blood through Mary. “As to his earthly life [Christ Jesus] was a descendant of David” (Romans 1:3).
Primarily, the title “Son of David” is more than a statement of physical genealogy. It is a Messianic title. When people referred to Jesus as the Son of David, they meant that He was the long-awaited Deliverer, the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.
source
-
1
- Show all
No acrimony, just keeping things in perspective. We should honor Mary but not make up ridiculous stories about her. These are nothing more than fables, which we're warned to stay away from: "and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables."—2 Timothy 4:4
I know a lot of Catholics depend on the clergy to interpret the Bible for them; but I would encourage you to study it for yourself. Your leaders are leading down the wrong road.
I know a lot of Catholics depend on the clergy to interpret the Bible for them; but I would encourage you to study it for yourself. Your leaders are leading down the wrong road.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I believe that to be correct
also, I think a couple of other posters at the beginning of the thread also mentionned that
Seventeen verses in the New Testament describe Jesus as the “son of David.” But the question arises, how could Jesus be the son of David if David lived approximately 1,000 years before Jesus? The answer is that Christ (the Messiah) was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:12–16). Jesus is the promised Messiah, which means He had to be of the lineage of David. Matthew 1 gives the genealogical proof that Jesus, in His humanity, was a direct descendant of Abraham and David through Joseph, Jesus’ legal father. The genealogy in Luke 3 traces Jesus’ lineage through His mother, Mary. Jesus is a descendant of David by adoption through Joseph and by blood through Mary. “As to his earthly life [Christ Jesus] was a descendant of David” (Romans 1:3).
Primarily, the title “Son of David” is more than a statement of physical genealogy. It is a Messianic title. When people referred to Jesus as the Son of David, they meant that He was the long-awaited Deliverer, the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.
source
also, I think a couple of other posters at the beginning of the thread also mentionned that
Seventeen verses in the New Testament describe Jesus as the “son of David.” But the question arises, how could Jesus be the son of David if David lived approximately 1,000 years before Jesus? The answer is that Christ (the Messiah) was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:12–16). Jesus is the promised Messiah, which means He had to be of the lineage of David. Matthew 1 gives the genealogical proof that Jesus, in His humanity, was a direct descendant of Abraham and David through Joseph, Jesus’ legal father. The genealogy in Luke 3 traces Jesus’ lineage through His mother, Mary. Jesus is a descendant of David by adoption through Joseph and by blood through Mary. “As to his earthly life [Christ Jesus] was a descendant of David” (Romans 1:3).
Primarily, the title “Son of David” is more than a statement of physical genealogy. It is a Messianic title. When people referred to Jesus as the Son of David, they meant that He was the long-awaited Deliverer, the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.
source
-
1
-
1
- Show all
- Status